Patient related outcomes of mechanical lead extraction techniques (PROMET) study: A comparison of two professions. Issue 5 (23rd April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Akhtar, Zaki; Gallagher, Mark M.; Elbatran, Ahmed I.; Starck, Christoph T.; Gonzalez, Elkin; Al‐Razzo, Omar; Mazzone, Patrizio; Delnoy, Peter‐Paul; Breitenstein, Alexander; Steffel, Jan; Eulert‐Grehn, Jürgen; Lanmüller, Pia; Melillo, Francesco; Marzi, Alessandra; Leung, Lisa WM; Domenichini, Giulia; Sohal, Manav
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 45:Issue 5(2022)
• Page Start: 658
• Page End: 665
• Publication Date: 2022-04-23
• Subjects: cardiac implantable electronic devices -- ICD -- lead extraction -- lead management -- pacemaker -- pacemaker infection -- transvenous lead extraction; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.14501
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Background: With an increasing number of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), there has been a paralleled increase in demand for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Cardiac surgeons (CS) and cardiologists perform TLE; however, data comparing the two groups of operators is scarce. Objective: We compared the outcomes of TLE performed by cardiologists and CS from six European lead extraction units. Method: Data was collected retrospectively of 2205 patients who had 3849 leads extracted (PROMET) between 2005 and 2018. Patient demographics and procedural outcomes were compared between the CS and cardiologist groups, using propensity score matching. A multivariate regression analysis was also performed for variables associated with 30‐day mortality. Results: CS performed the majority of extractions (59.8%), of leads with longer dwell times (90 [57–129 interquartile range (IQR)] vs. 62 [31–102 IQR] months, CS vs. cardiologists, p < .001) and with pre‐dominantly non‐infectious indications (57.4% vs. 50.2%, CS vs. cardiologists, p < .001). CS achieved a higher complete success per lead than the cardiologists (98.1% vs. 95.7%, respectively, p < .01), with a higher number of minor complications (5.51% vs. 2.1%, p < .01) and similar number of major complications (0.47% vs. 1.3%, p = .12). Thirty‐day mortality was similarly low in the CS and cardiologist groups (1.76% vs. 0.94%, p = .21). Unmatched data multivariate analysis revealed infection indication (OR 6.12 [1.9–20.3], p < .01), procedure duration (OR 1.01 [1.01–1.02], p < .01) and CS operator (OR 2.67, [1.12–6.37], p = .027) were associated with 30‐day mortality. Conclusion: TLE by CS was performed with similar safety and higher efficacy compared to cardiologists in high and medium‐volume lead extraction centers.